If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

****
I would mention that changing the macronutrient content of the diet can have a small impact in this regards. For the most part, switching out carbs and fat doesn’t do much despite what many claim. The difference in the thermic effect of food for carbs vs. fat is about 3% so for every 100 calories you switch out one for the other, you might see a 3 calorie difference in energy expenditure.

I’d note that carbs have a the advantage here with a thermic effect of 6% compared to 3% for fat. But the effect tends to be so small as to be irrelevant unless you are looking at whole scale changes to diet. Again, if you replace 100 calories of fat with carbs, you burn 3 more calories per day. If you replace 1000 calories of fat with carbs, you burn 30 calories more per day; you’ll lose an extra pound of fat every 116 days. Whoop de doo.

And while I know someone is going to bring up the issue of gluconeogenesis on ketogenic diets in the comments, I’ll only point out that the impact of this is small and disappears after about 2-3 weeks (when the body shifts to using ketones for fuel). As well, any increase in expenditure from this pathway is balanced against a loss of the thermic effect of carbs.

As well, direct research (by Brehm) shows that there is no difference in resting metabolic rate for ketogenic vs. carb-based diets; the thermic effect of food was higher in the high-carb condition. If there were a true metabolic advantage in terms of energy expenditure for ketogenic diets, someone would have been able to measure it by now. They haven’t and they aren’t going to and all of the theorizing about it doesn’t change the fact that direct research hasn’t supported the concept.

Now, protein has the biggest impact in terms of the thermic effect of food, switching out carbs or fat with protein tends to increase the energy out side of the equation but you have to make pretty large scale changes for it to be particularly significant. I’d note that protein also tends to be the most filling of all the nutrients and studies show that increasing dietary protein intake tends to cause people to eat less calories. Which is another huge confound; if increasing protein makes folks spontaneously eat less, it looks like it was adding the protein per se that did the magic. But it wasn’t, it was the effect of increasing protein on total energy intake that caused the fat loss. Like I said, a subtle confound that people tend to miss a lot.
Lyle McDonald
Posted August 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Last comment, Keif. And unless you look at really extreme diets, all the stuff you’re prattling on about add up to about 3/5ths of jack crap in the real world. Sure, compare 10% protein to 50% protein and it makes a difference from TEF. But all of the other pathways are mostly irrelevant theoretical nonsense, adding up to nothing in the real world. With most realistic diets, any differences from any of this amount to pretty much nothing. Especially not compared to total caloric intake.
---------------

If I'm not mistaken the law of thermodynamics is in regards to a closed system. Well of course the Human system isn't closed, hence the various orifices we possess. But it's such a small amount of otherwise-based energy escapement that it's not worth mentioning. And even if you chance efficiency and switch to a high protein/low carb/ketogenic approach, after a few weeks it's not even worth worrying about then. Just like EPOC or the "Afterburn" effect. That's Lyle's point.

****
I would mention that changing the macronutrient content of the diet can have a small impact in this regards. For the most part, switching out carbs and fat doesn’t do much despite what many claim. The difference in the thermic effect of food for carbs vs. fat is about 3% so for every 100 calories you switch out one for the other, you might see a 3 calorie difference in energy expenditure.

I’d note that carbs have a the advantage here with a thermic effect of 6% compared to 3% for fat. But the effect tends to be so small as to be irrelevant unless you are looking at whole scale changes to diet. Again, if you replace 100 calories of fat with carbs, you burn 3 more calories per day. If you replace 1000 calories of fat with carbs, you burn 30 calories more per day; you’ll lose an extra pound of fat every 116 days. Whoop de doo.

And while I know someone is going to bring up the issue of gluconeogenesis on ketogenic diets in the comments, I’ll only point out that the impact of this is small and disappears after about 2-3 weeks (when the body shifts to using ketones for fuel). As well, any increase in expenditure from this pathway is balanced against a loss of the thermic effect of carbs.

As well, direct research (by Brehm) shows that there is no difference in resting metabolic rate for ketogenic vs. carb-based diets; the thermic effect of food was higher in the high-carb condition. If there were a true metabolic advantage in terms of energy expenditure for ketogenic diets, someone would have been able to measure it by now. They haven’t and they aren’t going to and all of the theorizing about it doesn’t change the fact that direct research hasn’t supported the concept.

Now, protein has the biggest impact in terms of the thermic effect of food, switching out carbs or fat with protein tends to increase the energy out side of the equation but you have to make pretty large scale changes for it to be particularly significant. I’d note that protein also tends to be the most filling of all the nutrients and studies show that increasing dietary protein intake tends to cause people to eat less calories. Which is another huge confound; if increasing protein makes folks spontaneously eat less, it looks like it was adding the protein per se that did the magic. But it wasn’t, it was the effect of increasing protein on total energy intake that caused the fat loss. Like I said, a subtle confound that people tend to miss a lot.
Lyle McDonald
Posted August 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Last comment, Keif. And unless you look at really extreme diets, all the stuff you’re prattling on about add up to about 3/5ths of jack crap in the real world. Sure, compare 10% protein to 50% protein and it makes a difference from TEF. But all of the other pathways are mostly irrelevant theoretical nonsense, adding up to nothing in the real world. With most realistic diets, any differences from any of this amount to pretty much nothing. Especially not compared to total caloric intake.
---------------

If I'm not mistaken the law of thermodynamics is in regards to a closed system. Well of course the Human system isn't closed, hence the various orifices we possess. But it's such a small amount of otherwise-based energy escapement that it's not worth mentioning. And even if you chance efficiency and switch to a high protein/low carb/ketogenic approach, after a few weeks it's not even worth worrying about then. Just like EPOC or the "Afterburn" effect. That's Lyle's point.

I have read alot of Lyle Mcdonalds writings. In regards to the first law, it is the realization/application that energy is conserved in any process. It is demonstrated by using theoretical closed systems. Not once was it stated the body was a closed system.

I totally disagree about the other pathways being theoretical nonsense. Thats the whole point. Calories do NOT have the same physiological values from person to person. Period. Basic biochemistry illustrates this. The second law pretty much means that nonreversible spontaneous reactions increase the entropy of the universe. Variability steps in because of different genetics, which subsequently produce proteins(enzymes) and different levels of hormones in each individual. Can the enzymatic systems of each individual the same? Obviously the answer is no. Enzymes take spontaneous reactions and speed them up. If each individual has differing levels of metabolic enzyme activity due to genetics and varying levels of hormones, how can each fuel substrate 's efficiency be the same?

Good advice cannot be given to someone based on calorimetry derived values unless its just in a general sense. Anyone can make generalizations all day but if they can't apply to the individual (in the Real World) the point is moot.

Maybe one of the easiest areas to see the difference in the value of the food is in the differences between white and whole wheat or whole grain bread. Any WW or WG bread is decidedly better for you compared to the white bread based on composition. I have people ask all the time why they can look at the package and the carb ratio is practically the same, whats the difference? Start with the fact that the three nutritional parts of the wheat are used in the ww rather than just the endosperm, thus adding to the nutritional value of the bread and you're off and running. Witht he increased intake of zinc , vitamin b6, e, chromium etc... the biggest factor concerning weight loss is the amount of fiber in the bread, which helps not only in digestion, but in helping those who eat it feel fuller quicker.(thus aiding weight loss) When the bread is refined (as is white) they lose not only the nutrients, but he fiber as well. I read a study once where it can take up to 8 slices of white bread to equal the fiber in 1 slice of white. On top of that, more studies have concluded that those eating ww or wg cut their risk of heart attack or stroke anywhere from 20-35%.

So while poohiron is correct in a sense that fatloss is under hormonal/genetic control, what we eat helps determine the genetic make up of our body. In relation to the breads, both are converted into glucose for use in the body when digested. The complex carbs take longer to metabolize, yet they produce a sustained release of energy and nutrients for the body. The simple carbs converts directly to sugar and tend to get stored more readily in the fat cells when being metabolized.

I have read alot of Lyle Mcdonalds writings. In regards to the first law, it is the realization/application that energy is conserved in any process. It is demonstrated by using theoretical closed systems. Not once was it stated the body was a closed system.

I totally disagree about the other pathways being theoretical nonsense. Thats the whole point. Calories do NOT have the same physiological values from person to person. Period. Basic biochemistry illustrates this. The second law pretty much means that nonreversible spontaneous reactions increase the entropy of the universe. Variability steps in because of different genetics, which subsequently produce proteins(enzymes) and different levels of hormones in each individual. Can the enzymatic systems of each individual the same? Obviously the answer is no. Enzymes take spontaneous reactions and speed them up. If each individual has differing levels of metabolic enzyme activity due to genetics and varying levels of hormones, how can each fuel substrate 's efficiency be the same?

Good advice cannot be given to someone based on calorimetry derived values unless its just in a general sense. Anyone can make generalizations all day but if they can't apply to the individual (in the Real World) the point is moot.

Fatloss is under hormonal/genetic control.

I don't disagree. And I was just giving it the "yea I know" deal as far as the body not being a closed system because so many people talk about the law of thermodynamics as if it is a closed system.

And yes hormones control everything! As I always state, barring a disease or malfunction... But the closer one is to having a "normal" hormonal function, the less there is to worry about in regards to these arguments. If on is skewed, they aren't an example to stake a claim to as far as I'm concerned,and that group should be studied separately, which of course, limited studies in these manners is an issue. One can always employ this or that tactic to affect this or that hormone to help with this or that goal. But at the end of the day as far as I'm concerned it's pick an approach and stick with it. Over the course of a few months one will probably lose the same amount of fat, all else equal. ***All else equal*** which it seems to rarely be. So if you have suck ass insulin sensitivity or don't track intake, or whatever, there is a plethora of reasons to not get adequate results. That's the way I approach it.

Maybe one of the easiest areas to see the difference in the value of the food is in the differences between white and whole wheat or whole grain bread. Any WW or WG bread is decidedly better for you compared to the white bread based on composition. I have people ask all the time why they can look at the package and the carb ratio is practically the same, whats the difference? Start with the fact that the three nutritional parts of the wheat are used in the ww rather than just the endosperm, thus adding to the nutritional value of the bread and you're off and running. Witht he increased intake of zinc , vitamin b6, e, chromium etc... the biggest factor concerning weight loss is the amount of fiber in the bread, which helps not only in digestion, but in helping those who eat it feel fuller quicker.(thus aiding weight loss) When the bread is refined (as is white) they lose not only the nutrients, but he fiber as well. I read a study once where it can take up to 8 slices of white bread to equal the fiber in 1 slice of white. On top of that, more studies have concluded that those eating ww or wg cut their risk of heart attack or stroke anywhere from 20-35%.

So while poohiron is correct in a sense that fatloss is under hormonal/genetic control, what we eat helps determine the genetic make up of our body. In relation to the breads, both are converted into glucose for use in the body when digested. The complex carbs take longer to metabolize, yet they produce a sustained release of energy and nutrients for the body. The simple carbs converts directly to sugar and tend to get stored more readily in the fat cells when being metabolized.

This is kinda my point. There's so many reasons to lose sight of by the time one reaches the end of a decent "diet" phase that it's not worth worrying about. Eat real food, and watch/track/know how to adjust your intake. And really who even can/will track for that long? It would have to be a hardcore study of professional standard to even start to address these issues and they seem to be lacking.